Got myself tangled up with another fundy--from the UK in this case. A guy working on his PhD. Here's the correspondence:

Hello James,

I read your article Refuting the Myth That Jesus Never Existed. I am disappointed at your false charges regarding the Jesus Mythologists, the ridicule with which you dismiss the arguments you imagine we have, and the shallowness of your discussion. To refute something you must discuss it point by point, and you must prove that you have a solid, defensible position against opponents. You raise points but you do not discuss them; you dismiss them as not worthy of rational discussion.

Also, in order to refute something you need to be sure that you are refuting something that exists. The arguments you think you are refuting are not the arguments Jesus Mythologists bring against the Historical Jesus Hypothesis. It may be that you are a professor with a PhD from a top seminary of the world. I sat under the instruction of such a professor. He would agree with the arguments you are making. This does not make them correct or accurate.

The Christians are not in the habit of listening to the skeptics. By their sheer volume of numbers they can make it necessary for us to keep our silence. For example, I was the only atheist in a class of about twenty Christians. The professor was a Christian. I was studying Christian theology at a Christian seminary. The power imbalance was so extreme that it would have been suicide for me to "fight to the death" any Jesus question. It would also have been indecent and disrespectful of me to push it for its own sake, considering that I was at a Christian school by choice.

I understand that I am the second atheist he had in his class. He may well write a book on how he successfully refuted his atheist students' questions about Jesus. I cannot (and will not) burn his books but my failure to burn his books does not make his books true. He did not refute my questions or position. I stopped pushing the question because: 1. It was stupid to keep pushing when I could see he would not give up. 2. It was indecent and disrespectful to keep pushing for its own sake considering that I had chosen to study theology in his school, and that I had come to my own conclusions.

I hereby give you the opportunity to know the truth--that the arguments you claim we have are not the arguments we do have. Whether or not you accept this fact remains to be seen.

R. S. Martin

Hello R.S. Martin,

The Jesus Myth has been refuted many times over. It won't die because it is a conspiracy theory and there are always people who will believe them. Refutations here:

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

You sound like a bright chap so you might consider why all non-Christian historians reject the Jesus Myth as well. Not even Richard Dawkins could bring himself to support it. It is an internet fad and not worth anyone's time. Sorry, I know it is annoying when no one takes your hobby horse seriously, but you should realise why not. Incidently, the idea I don't listen to sceptics won't wash. Just look at my writing and you'll see I've almost certainly read more atheist literature than you have.

Best wishes

James

My Reply:



They don't. Read Tom Harpur and his sources. Inquire as to the reason for Bart Ehrman's deconversion. Explain my conviction that the Jesus story was a myth before I encountered the idea anywhere. The sources you give are Christian sources--from your own website if I remember correctly. Respected researchers use a wide variety of sources, including sources with which they disagree very strongly. You need to enquire of other sources.



This is a very strange thing to say in the same breath as the above statement. If you have done your research, you will know that Richard Dawkins is not a historian by any stretch of the imagination. He is a biologist. How could he be expected to know enough about the details of the research of the historical Jesus to support or refute any specific argument around it?

James, you want us skeptics to take you seriously? When and if you prove yourself capable of accurate research and intelligent discussion we will respect and take you seriously; we may not agree with you but we will respect you and take you seriously. Until then, it is impossible to rate you other than we rate most fundies--incapable of rational thought.



When and if you do your research you will see that it is not just "an internet fad." It is a conviction that directs the lives of very many people throughout the world.



Please inform me what and how much atheist literature I have read.

For your information, I am looking for quality Christian websites to list in my Index of Sources. At first glance, I was so impressed with the scholarly appearance of your page about refuting the Jesus myth that I listed it. I was sure you had some really good arguments that we exChristians might want to pick apart and consider, especially people who are at the questioning stage. However, after reading a paragraph or two I had to remove it from my list. Most Christian sites are "quality" only insofar as they promote the faith. They do not make intelligent, scholarly arguments.

R. S. Martin

James,

It occurred to me that perhaps I don't know what "refute" means so I looked it up on answers.com. Here is their short definition:

re·fute (rĭ-fyūt') pronunciation
tr.v., -fut·ed, -fut·ing, -futes.

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

It is as I thought: to prove wrong with evidence. The Christians cannot prove the Jesus Mythologists wrong because they don't have the evidence with which to do it. I don't know what kind of scholarship training you get at Cambridge but where I am studying the profs would reject any argument built on evidence as weak as that on which Christianity is built. All the same, they do accept that Jesus was a historical person. The only way this makes sense is that they do not apply their intellectual rigor to their religious beliefs, nor to the ancient references to Jesus and the context within which they were written.

I have read very little systematic thought outside Christianity, though I do have several courses on world religions. My personal search has been to find a way to make sense of the Plan of Salvation as taught by traditional orthodox Christianity in the West. Ever since I heard the story as a child it has made absolutely no sense. After several years of study in theology on the graduate level I have still not found an answer. The only people who will even look at the question are people outside Christianity or on their way out. I am left with two options: 1. lie about what I believe or 2. deconvert.

I refuse to lie about sacred matters. When I say I believe I am saved through the shed blood of Christ, I mean it makes sense in my brain. And it does not make sense. It never has made sense, not even when I was a child as young as eight. Not until my mid forties was I exposed to nonreligious ideas. This means my inability to make sense of it has nothing to do with nonreligious influences because there were none. I have seen this in quite a number of other exChristians.

Thus, I conclude that when the human is concerned about Truth and about personal integrity above popular opinion, he or she is convinced against all odds that the basic tenets of the Christian religion make no sense. I have also seen repeatedly that those people who retain the Christian religion cut off intellectual exploration at some point. There are certain questions they refuse to look at.

So anyway, for the sake of personal integrity I have been forced to deconvert, cost what it may. And the costs have been enormous. The rewards have been bigger. I realize that you will probably ridicule or totally dismiss this testimony. That is what I mean that you don't listen to skeptics.

R.S. Martin

Some comments to the folks here:

I must say I am impressed with the intuitive insight he gains from his Holy Spirit. Calls me a "bright chap" for crying out loud! I think a "chap" is an arrogant young male who thinks he knows more than he probably does. Or maybe "chap" is not young and not arrogant, but I think "chap" is always male. I am intentionally using initials these days to see what difference it makes when people don't know my gender. This is the first response I get that explicitly assumes I am male.

An omniscient God/Holy Spirit would obviously not misinform his precious child (James Hannam in this case) about the gender of his correspondent. If the Holy Spirit is so delinquent as to tell him that he is corresponding with a male when in fact he is corresponding with a female, how many other things might this Holy Spirt get wrong???

It occurred to rub his nose in this but on the other hand, this is quite a gem straight from the Labratory of Life and I might not want to throw my gems to the pigs because they are sure to get them yukkie.

This post, and the next one, were written in response to Harlequin's question on exC (where I also posted this) as to what kind of scholar this James Hannam is and what he has read. It may be of interest to readers here in that it shows what we can learn about people from their websites.

Your question sent me searching the website where I "met" the guy.Here's a gem from his writing:



I see. No wonder he takes offense at my challenges. I am challenging his very scholarship, his intellectual expertise--the very thing he set out to prove he hasn't lost. I suggest he never had it to begin with. He's so focused on ridiculing nonreligious people rather than debating rationally.

I know I saw the name of his school earlier and I'm still looking for it. But here's a page of stuff I cannot believe. He claims to have done research that proves that Colunmbus and contemporaries (including the church) knew the earth was round; that the flat earth theory is a myth; that the question of Columbus's day was the size of the earth rather than its shape. Any science buff on here care to comment on the credibility of such a claim?

This page might give you some idea on what this man has read. But it gets tricky. A guy by the name of Christopher Price also posts on the same website. So I don't know who wrote this particular book. It mentions quite a bit on Earl Doherty.

What really confuses me about this website is that the homepage is for a Catholic Church in California. If I remember correctly, the name of the school James Hannom says he's studying at is Cambridge. Does that make sense? Is it part of Oxford? His website ends with uk.

Here it is! I found it!



That address leaves me still more confused. I guess he's studying in England. Some of his website addresses are built on this http://www.bede.org.uk, which seems to be built on the website of the Catholic church in California. But this address has his own name dot com. And on the bede.org.uk another person also posts. Usually I can figure out how websites work when I explore but I can see no rhyme or reason to this pattern. Is this the virtual version of the enmeshed personality of fundyism?

I'm beginning to understand how Hannam, and like-minded folk, can make statements like he does, i.e. that "all non-Christian historians reject the Jesus Myth." A man who kills all his enemies need not worry what his enemies will do to him because he has no enemies. In intellectual circles, a man can apparently deny the existence of an opposing view by discounting and disregarding everything his opponents say. However, this does not mean that his opponents do not exist. I come to this conclusion because I have just now made a few discoveries on the internet that prove Hannam more wrong than I realized.

Bart Erhman was not only a Christian, he was a born-again fundamentalist Christian who was out to convert everybody he knew. He was also honest and intelligent. He enrolled in Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College to get the education he needed to study the Bible in its original manuscripts. According to the article (see the link at the beginning of this paragraph), after many years of study he concluded that there are no original manuscripts and that the manuscripts we have are far from inerrant. He deconverted. I understand he tells his story in Misquoting Jesus, but you might want to check it out before you buy the book.


In The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur produces evidence that Jesus is a myth. Harpur has a PhD from the same school as some of my professors, but my professors don't like Harpur. Here is a quote from the Pagan Christ website:



I think Hannam knows about people like Harpur and Ehrman. Then there is also Acharya S. I think her real name is D. M. Murdock. I'm on her mailing list at the moment, which is how I found the article on Bart Ehrman. Hannam knows about Acharya S because he says something really mean about her on his website. Maybe he thinks if he slanders and denies his opponents they will "go away" and "not exist."

This kid may live to see the day that his religion is not the all-powerful ruler of the universe it is at the moment. That is, after all, the primary goal of this site.

I confronted Big Boy with his misinformation thus:

You tell me no nonChristian proves that Jesus is a myth. Yet on your own website about refuting the Jesus myth you list Acharya S and her book the Christ Conspiracy, along with a batch of others. Apparently you are aware of some powerful and thorough-going scholars who have refuted the Historical Jesus Hypothesis. You reject them but you have no basis for your arguments.

You mention in your letter that "all" nonchristian historians say it's a conspiracy. That is shoddy scholarship on your part. Also, your misogyny shows big time. Misogyny went out of style before you were born. You are using an especially ugly form.

Apparently you have not even read Pagan Christ. You are like the man who has no enemies because he kills all his enemies. Just because you deny the existence of the people who disagree with you does not annihilate them. James, there is a powerful movement out there refuting the Historical Jesus Hypothesis. The wise man will look at the foundation of his faith. The foolish will continue to build on the sands of superstition. You appear like one of the more foolish kids out there. And no, I am not buying your book. The way you've lied to me through your teeth, there's no way I can ever trust anything you say.

So you think the medieval popes knew the earth was round??? Are you in science or in theology? Or neither? You have not yet answered my previous questions. Maybe your only existence is virtual. One of these days we'll know.

**************************

To the folks here:

Big Boy is having problems. He is now moving into bully mode. He is calling me "Mr. Martin" and suggests it would be an insult to my intelligence if he assumed that I thought Acharya S or Tom Harpur were "scholars" or "historians." This is enough for him to assert that this conversation must end now. I won't post his actual email.

Will "Mr." Martin "submit"? Possibly. But Ms. Martin is another story. It fails to occur to him that he's dealing with Ms. Martin. She replies:

Dear Sir,

Several items:

1. You label a biologist of your own country, Richard Dawkins, a historian.
2. You disregard the credentials of North American scholars like Acharya S and Tom Harpur.
3. You thereby disobey a cardinal command of your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when he says not to bury your talents. IF you have submitted your PhD, as you claim, and IF you are studying at an accredited university as you claim, then you have training in critical thinking to fairly evaluate the work of your opponents. You prove in both your online writing and in your letters to me that you do not apply this talent. Thus, you disobey Jesus' command to use your talent. Would you appear before the judgment seat of God without the talent multiplied and increased? "You slothful and wicked servant!." he will say to you, "Depart from me into outer darkness."

Is this what you want?

By the way, you have proved that the Holy Spirit is totally incapable of informing you correctly of hidden things. You would not exhibit such misogyny and arrogance if the Holy Spirit had correctly informed you of all hidden things and prevented you from making grievous errors of presumption. Your responses to me prove that the Holy Spirit is either totally incapable of such, completely irresponsible, or nonexistent. And if the Holy Spirit is nonexistent, then by extension, so is the God whom you think you serve. For that reason there will be no judgment seat for you to face, no hell or outer darkness for God to send you to, nor a heaven to reward your faithfulness with. When you die you will be as dead as a dog. Death is the end for me, for you, for all other sentient beings.

Just a tip: If you want people to respect you, you need to start by showing respect to others. You can start by treating them as equals, whether or not you agree with them, rather than ridiculing them.

R. S. Martin

For the folks here who don't know: Tom Harpur has a PhD every bit as legitimate as our Big Boy. It so happens that Harpur got his from the University of Toronto rather than from Oxford and it may be that Oxfordians consider Toronto a backwoods colonial shack not worthy of recognition, at least, insecure wimps like Big Boy. Acharya S makes no secret of her Native roots and of her gender. Two fatal strikes against her. Strike three and you're out--she exposes Jesus for who he is: a myth. All Big Boy is left with is bullying. All his evidence is wiped clean away right out from under him. He has nothing to stand on and he knows it. Otherwise, why would he resort to bullying???

I forget how I found him. Maybe I was googling for stuff to post on my website or something, and his came up. And well, for a person whose mission in life it is to fight fundamentalist religion, I guess it makes sense to take him on. He ridicules his opponents. As an educated person (if indeed he is educated) he should know how to debate rather than ridicule, but he doesn't. He can bully and ridicule. That's all he knows how to do, it seems. So like our North American fundies.

Dear RSM

I happened to come across this discussion (although it has been rather a monologue up til now!). I have no wish to get into an argument, but I think I understand why James has responded as he has. If you want to know I can tell you, but maybe this is a dead topic now? just let me know.

Best wishes

I had not looked at this thread in a long time but glanced over it briefly just now. It looks like he is using the same tactics used by evangelicals everywhere. The goal is to do what needs to be done to make their god and religion come out on top. Truth and fact are expendable. I see no benefit in further discussion of his possible motives.